About your Search

20121101
20121130
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 75 (some duplicates have been removed)
. >> commissioner antonini? >> present. >> commissioner moore? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> first on your calendar, commissioners, are consideration of items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. case no. 2011.0430e at 4 08 potrero avenue, appeal of preliminary mitigated negative declaration proposed for continuance to january 17, 2013. i have no other items proposed for continuance. >> is there any public comment on the item proposed for continuance? seeing none, commissioners? commissioner wu. >> i move to continue item number 1 to january 17th. >> second. >> on that motion to continue, commissioner antonini? >> aye. >> commissioner moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> commissioner fong? >> aye. >> so moved unanimously, commissioners, that motion passes 5 to 0. next up is your consent calendar. all matters listed here under constitute a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and will be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussionvv of these
. >> commissioner moore. >> here. >> and commissioner avery. >> here. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first up is items for continuous and item one at harve street and proposed for continuous until december 13, 2012. further under the consent calendar item six at 2895 san browny avenue request for conditional use authorization. this project sponsor has requested a continuous to december 6. >> is there any public comment on these two items? >> do you want to talk about item 11? >> six? >> 11. >> yes. >> under the calendar with consultation with the city attorney's office this item needs to be continued to november 29. >> could you repeat that item, that last item please? >> absolutely. commissioners, under your regular calendar item 11 the amendments to administrative code chapter 31 to clarify certain procedures provided in that specifically ceqa is proposed for continuous after consultation with the city attorney's office. >> is there any public comment on the three items that are proposed for continuance? >> regarding of course lack of public notification in a timely manner. it is wrong w
. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> commissioners, first on your item items proposed for continuance. item 1, case no. 2012.1381t, inclusionary housing updates, it is proposed for continuance december 30 13th, 2012. item 2, 2012.1306tz, review of two ordinances (planning code text amendment and zoning map amendment) that would rezone parcels in the upper market ncd to the upper market nct, planning code and zoning map amendments, proposed for continuance to february 21st, 2013. item 3, case no. 2012.1168c, 793 south van ness avenue, request for conditional use authorization is proposed for continuance to january 24th, 2013. items 4a, b and c for case numbers 2009.0 724 d, 2012.0 888 d, and 2009.0 724 v at 2833 through 2835 fillmore street, mandatory discretionary reviews and variance have been withdrawn. further on your -- under your regular calendar, commissioners, item 15, case no. 2012.1 183 t and z, the amendments to planning code to establish the fillmore street ncd, there is a request from the sponsor and supervisor to continue to december 13th, 2012. and that's all i have. >> okay. is there
. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, i have a question for project sponsor. the west side in the photograph that we have in front of us shows that there is no fence. can you explain that, please? >> >>> it's mainly because the vines haven't grown to that side yet. it is sort of an organic thing. >> i was talking about this side. >>> yes, is there a way to switch back to this? yes, that's it, that's the one, and there it is. no,ing we haven't planted anything at this stage. >> i was wondering why isn't it enclosed. >> oh, it will be enclosed. * >>> that was actually right after scrubtionthv. construction. and when the restaurant first opened. we're planning at that area to place planters so that no one can walk. because if you continue up the west side, you're actually in the interstitial area between the wings of the two buildings. we definitely don't want customers going out there. and we will have a pretty solid and heavy planter that is going to prevent anyone from walking through there. and also provide, you know, something more attractive than looking out the other side of the yard. and we're
moore? >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> commissioner wu, you are here by recused. >> okay, continuing on with public comment, i think, jonas, there is one on the rail there. if there is any other public comment, if you would like to come up. all right. nichiko yamada. >>> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is nichiko yamada and i live at 1959 sutter street adjacent to rooster tail restaurant. i grew up in the western addition jay town area and my parents owned a small japanese confectionery store in this neighborhood for 36 years. my parents believed that they were able to be in business for so long because of the good will and support of this neighborhood and community. i am proud of their achievement. our neighborhood is a diverse neighborhood with a culturally rich history. people here are friendly, supportive and welcoming of businesses. many are long-term residents who have lived here for 20, 30 years. in times of need such as during the 1989 earthquake or during heavy storms, the neighbors came t
not understood]? >> here. >> and commissioner sugaya? >> here. >> first up is items proposed for continuance. item 1, 2012.0847d, 28-30 toledo way, request for discretionary review is proposed for continuance to november 15th, 2012. items 2a and b for case numbers 2007.0036d, 422 vicente street and 2007.0037d, 422 vicente street mandatory discretionary reviews pro poed for continuance to december 6, 2012. further on your calendar, commissioners, under the regular calendar, item 15 on the corrected calendar for case no. 2012.0928ddd for 2000 20th street request for discretionary review is proposed for continuance to december 13th. i have actually one speaker card. >> mark de vicente. come on up to the microphone. >>> i think my card is pretty self-explanatory. >> sir, if you could state your name for the record. >>> mark de vicente. i'm the dr requester. i cannot make the proposed continuance date on the 15th. i am available the next three thursdays. i just can't make it next week. >> this is for toledo way. okay, thank you. is there any additional public comment? on the items proposed for co
. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, several things. i think in terms of additional information following up on commissioner hillis' request avery -- thank you for that but i think the second part of what i was implying in my email was a comparison of the three -- the two previous attempts and this one, which was mentioned by commissioner moore so that would be the aleato pier and 2006 was the other one and see the provisions and compare the differences between the three. >> i thought that was what the comparison table did and had each ordinance. >> that's not what mine says. my says "what exists now and the various provisions". >> it sounds like you're missing a couple of pages. i will make sure you and the public has access to all three ages and i have a proposal comparing to the 2006 and 10 proposal so i will make sure that is available. >> okay. and i think also there have been -- i received correspondence as commissioner moore and others i am sure have at that point. some of them are specifically mentions certain kinds of ceqa provisions and where the ordinance appears not to follow
copies. >> thank you. >> seeing no further public comment. commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i can i get the reason yet the date was chosen? it's right after thanksgiving. >> that date was proposed by super wiener. >> isn't there a time limit? >> >> it is and it's for the san francisco administrative code and doesn't have as long. we consider planning code amendments and have 90 days. these items don't have that 90 day hold and only at a 30 day hold at the board and the board can schedule hearings. in this case if you continue it to the 29th he would hold off hearings at the board until you consider this on the 29th. >> so that then -- is he then contemplating scheduling meetings at christmas time. >> i didn't ask when the meeting was. previously it would be after this meeting and i assume it's the same case. >> because in essence wasn't this issued by 16 of october and today is the scheduled date. is that right? >> that's right. >>i would like to extend the time period out to december 6. >> commissioner antonini. >> l i would speak against that extension. this is an administrativ
. >> commissioners, you have a motion and second to not take dr -- i'm sorry. >> i'm sorry. commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. in contrast to commissioner moore, i can't help but think when this was laid out that those little wedge shape pieces may not totally have been intentionally placed there, but they were there because of the way the buildings were designed and laid out and the way the streets curve. and, therefore, they were kind of left over spaces where buildings didn't naturally fit. but, on the other hand, right in a row with each other up the hill. so, maybe there was some conscious planning going on at that time. and whether or not there are tons of open space on top of the hill, this is a completely different kind of open space situation. and i think that, you know, the more we try to completely infill every piece of land in the city that we have, you know, the less and less i think it becomes livable. and quite in contrast to whoever testified that families only want recreation space and they did not mention open space is a very telling kind of survey to me. if that's the situati
. >> commissioner hillis. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >> commissioner sugaya. >> no. >> commissioner avery with commissioner with you. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> that passes. all things under the consent calendar are routine by the commission and will be acted upon one roll call vote by the commission. there is no discussion unless the staff or public requests and in that case will be removed from the consent calendar and considered at a future hearing. case dolores terrace and request for condominium conversion. case 343 frederick street and request for condominium conversion. 1830 taraval street and request for continued authorization and 2001 pol ecstreet request for conditional use authorization. item six was continued to december 6. i have no speaker cards. >> is there any public comment on the items on the consent calendar? seeing none commissioner antonini. >> move to approve the consent items before us which are items two, three, four, and five. >> second. >> on that motion commissioner antonini. >> aye. >> commissioner borden. >> aye. >> commissioner moore. >> aye. >>
is closed. commissioner sugaya. >> yes. i guess the western soma plan takes precedent over anything in the central corridor at the moment. this plan has been underway for years. central corridor has no public participation process quite like western soma, except for developers, i suppose. so, i think that's a fair way to approach it. we're going to adopt this first, central corridor can take its lumps when it comes along. i'm going to move adoption of the initiation for all of the items 13 a, b and c. >> second. >> commissioner antonini. >> well, i have a few questions and haven't had the opportunity to reach the detail of the plan. but mr. cohen mentioned these items concerning metering of affordable housing and metering of jobs. is there anything in the plan that, you know, blocks the possibility of housing unless there's high percentages of affordable housing built as part of them or i think we should be aware of these things before we approve something. >> [speaker not understood] staff. the plan does have a policy that basically states that there should be an established policy
. >> commissioner sugaya. >> a couple things. isn't upc involved in bay lands? the primary developer of that, i assume? given that situation and their continued interest in this one, i guess there's another, not ifc related, but it seems like the only thing in the way in some sense are the city boundaries. and there isn't a way to bridge the two in some fashion. i don't know what i'm talking about here, but it seems like if you have a developer that's already moving ahead in the passion on one side of the line and they're interested in something on the other side of the line, you know, the only thing preventing some cooperation is the city boundary, you know, it's a strange situation to think about from a developer standpoint, i think. but anyway, given that barrier is there. and there could be economies of scale, i assume. i'm not a developer. it's too bad that we have this kind of situation arise. another question is going to be a dumb question. the redevelopment agency did own schlage lock site ; is that correct, no? >> no, actually most of the site was owned by -- my goodness, i'm forgettin
has put out today. >> commissioner sugaya. >> thank you. yes, in response to some mention of the imps, that's really very calorickvy -- clonky way to get at student housing. doing it in the inventory is great. [speaker not understood]. i think extending it to mid january we're going to get the same arguments that we always get, that this legislation was pushed through during the holidays and we didn't have a time to meet and therefore we want to push it into february. so, i don't think that's going to work. and then lastly, i think that in at terms of collecting information, i don't know specifically whether the provision actually calls for pinpointing locations of student housing. * but i think some way of knowing where they are is extremely important, especially given a particular institution here in the city that happens to have buildings all over downtown that are currently illegal. like to make a motion to recommend approval with modifications made by the staff and also to have the staff and the supervisors office look at where there may be conflicts or other similar provisions
. >> commissioner sugaya? >> aye. >> commissioner wu? >> aye. >> and commission president fong? >> aye. >> so moved, commissioners. >> thank you. >> that motion passes +6 to -0. >> do you guys want a break here? >> really quick. >> i think we're going to take a quick -- yeah, five-minute break. thank you. >>please stand by; meeting in recess >> this is to develop a limited financial serve is e service sterling bank and trust at 115 pest portal avenue in the west portal neighborhood commercial district. the project is not considered for formula retail, formula retail exempts financial services. the proposed branch would occupy 199 square feet at the front of an existing commercial space. the department does not support this request because a large amount of commercial ground story frontage in the retail district is already occupied by several large scale financial institutions including bank of america, chase bank citibank, first america bank [speaker not understood]. their well served by these existing banks and other financial institutions in the district. in addition, the financial institution i
in treasures here. >> any additional public comment? public comment portion is closed. commissioner sugaya, did you have -- >> yes, we normally don't comment on testimony that's given during public comment, but as the maker of the motion on the case that -- on buena vista, i think there is some different interpretation of what that motion was. and, so, i'd like to have staff get back to at least me, and i don't know of anybody else -- >> commissioner sugaya, i can review the tape and follow-up with you. >> okay, thank you. and as far as michael crowe, i think i'll deal with it next week and perhaps it might be appropriate i'll mention to hpc, they might want to adjourn. >> thank you. commissioner antonini. >> mr. ionin, i also would like to see in regards to the buena vista project. >> absolutely. >> commissioners, it will place you under your regular calendar. item 7, western soma community plan - informational presentation. >> good afternoon, president fong, commissioners. we're going to begin the presentation with a few remarks from the honorable supervisor kim. >> thank you, mr. teetion, an
follow on that work for central corridor. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, thank you. i think it's a tremendous planning effort. glad to see it finally coming before us. not only me; the community for sure. and just to echo mr. warmer's comments, i think japantown that i've been following, again, for a number of years, i think they thought they could get it done in two, but it's been a number of years now. i think it's benefited greatly from the experience in western soma. and especially i think the concept of addressing cultural resources through the social heritage district concept. senate bill 307 what on the cutting edge of identifying and funding and identifying cultural resources in the three japantowns in california, los angeles, san jose, and san francisco. they might say a lot of the cultural planning work started with that particular bill and implementation of survey efforts through the japantown community and the planning department. that, unfortunately, was not well funded. and although the identification process now i think is contributing tremendously to the japanto
. >> thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> yes, just to clarify. on page 17 you have a table of employment concentration by land use in 2011 and it's by like financial some a north central, southwest. do those terms then correspond to the map 1.1 on page 25 that lays out where these districts are? >> yes. >> okay. and then given that civic center extends quite a bit to the east, do you know if it includes the union square area or is that -- >> civic center is commerce and industry district? >> yes. >> i don't believe it includes union square. i think that's within the financial district. >> then i'm curious as to why civic center has 27% of the hotel concentration. it seems awfully high to me. >> that would be -- >> it runs along the north part of market, but there's a little jog that -- anyway, if you could -- it's not a big thing. >> no, no, it's not. the way to read that is that that district has 17% of all hotel employment. >> oh, okay, all right. >> that's kind of an odd thing. >> another comment following up on commissioner antonini's observation about the ridership figures. i mean,
. >> sugaya. >> yes, along that line it might be interesting -- i'd be interested to know the cost of the program. * commissioner sugaya within the city there is a cost obviously with staffing and administration. i'm not looking for a number, but some kind of ratio or percent or something that tells us what the program is costing. >> i'm glad you brought that up. we are just completing a financial analysis of the program that we are going to do every five years. so, that will give you some idea of the cost to the sponsors of what's happening. it looks at fee on-site and off-site side by side. comparatively how it impacts them. they can get you information regarding staff [speaker not understood]. >> with respect to the development community, since the program has been running for a while now, do you feel that there's general developer acceptance or -- do you know what i'm trying to say? i'm sure some don't like it, for example, and they're sort of only doing it because they're forced into it, where others i think that have come before us are more accepting and somewhat enthusiasti
requests for information. there was a request from i believe commissioner sugaya on the [speaker not understood]. we are tracking that to look at -- kind of keeping track of it. we know the e-i-r will be released in the fall. we're looking out to see whether the city proposal seems fairly compatible with the schlage lock site. we're looking at a community less compatible, but we're still looking at the e-i-r. there was request for information on caltrain and high-speed rail i believe from commissioner moore. we still think that the schlage lock project is [speaker not understood] caltrain is trying to electrify, making it quieter, more friendly to transfer into development. with regards to high-speed rail, we're keeping track of that. we know it would use the tracks. it would go through there, but they're sort of -- the stations are further to the north and further to the south of the site. so, that kind of -- we're keeping track of those things. that is the extent of the information that we have. so, i'll leave it up for questions and more details. >> thank you. we'll open it u
>> absolutely. >> sugaya. >> yes. is there any correlation between what we're calling p-d-r on page 16 and manufacturing which is back on page 40? >> good question. >> because it seems like -- i have to just finish my observation. >> sure. >> because on p-d-r we're down over the 2002-11 years by 26%. it went up slightly in the middle years there, in 2006 and '07. if you go back to page 40 and look at the manufacturing totals, it's pretty surprising that in 2011 we have more information jobs than we did back in 2002. so, you don't have to answer that question now. but if, you know, i don't know if p-d-rs totally -- if manufacturing is a broader category or if it encompasses p-d-r or what the -- >> well, what might be useful now, i look at that number and see if it's a mistake or not because that does look a little odd. the difference between p-d-r and manufacturing and manufacturing is an industrial sector, economic sector. and, i'm sorry, manufacturing is an industrial economic sector. and p-d-r is actually one of our land use categories that we've created ourselves to relate employmen
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 75 (some duplicates have been removed)